CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dolphin Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, accessing testing and keeping the environment clean. They also found plans for managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors used appointments, temperature checks, handwashing, masks and a signing-in book. Families received regular updates and could use virtual visits.
The home had enough protective equipment, trained staff, cleaning arrangements, testing plans and a contingency plan. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed safely.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other four areas were not assessed in this inspection.
Visitor safety
Visits were controlled through appointments, temperature checks, handwashing, masks and visitor records.
“All visitors to the home are required to wash their hands and wear masks on arrival.” from the report
Family contact
Families received regular updates and virtual visits were arranged when in-person visits were not possible.
“Virtual visits were arranged for families who are not able to visit their relative in the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had suitable protective equipment, had been trained to use it and supplies were monitored.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The environment was clean, with regular cleaning focused on frequently touched surfaces.
“The environment was clean, and arrangements were in place for regular cleaning with special attention being paid to touch points.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what infection control measures must visitors follow?
- 02How often are staff tested, and what happens if a staff member or resident tests positive?
- 03How are families currently kept updated about infection risks and safety arrangements?
- 04How would a new resident be tested and supported to isolate on admission?
- 05Is the vacant flat still available for isolation if needed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led, and the Safe area was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some agency staffing and end-of-life planning points to check.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 February 2018. Two inspectors and an expert by experience visited. They spoke with staff, observed people and staff together, received feedback from eight relatives, and checked care records, medicines, training and management records.
The home supported 15 people with learning and or physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood people's communication, health and support needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans recorded their choices, preferences and personal histories. People were supported to take part in activities, keep family relationships and use health services.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Safe medicines care
Medicines were stored securely, records were accurate and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff also had training and competency checks.
“Accurate records were maintained of medicines administered and we saw that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, understood their communication and responded to their needs. Inspectors saw warmth and respect in daily interactions.
“We observed many instances of genuine warmth between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed personal and social histories, choices and preferences. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“They were person centred. People's choices and preferences were documented.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were included in care reviews and could access some information through electronic care records. The home also held meetings for parents and carers.
“There is also a quarterly meeting for parents/carers to both discuss any issues and to keep up to date with developments at Dolphin Court.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits and action plans to check and improve areas such as medicines, care records and health and safety.
“The provider had systems in place to review, monitor and improve the quality of service delivery.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
minorThe manager knew that end-of-life information needed to be included in care plans, but discussions with people and their representatives were still planned for later reviews.
“They were planning to have conversations with people and their representatives at their next reviews.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorRelatives reported that staffing difficulties had sometimes led to more agency cover than they wanted. They also said this did not appear to reduce care standards, and inspectors found enough staff on the inspection day.
“There have been times when they have struggled with staffing levels and we have seen more agency cover than we would have liked” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work in the home, and how often is agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication, health and manual handling needs?
- 03Have end-of-life wishes now been discussed and recorded for my relative and their representatives?
- 04How would my relative's preferred activities and routines be included in their support plan?
- 05How can families access and contribute to the electronic care records?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report says all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Dolphin Court
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 March 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.